Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been posting on City-Data for well over three years now. I was an established atheist when I started, and entered into many honestly hopeful debates with the intent of getting some perspective on others’ well-considered and introspective evaluations of their faith, their beliefs and most importantly, why?
I hoped to validate or debunk my own long-held beliefs through honest and open-minded discussion with the devout but intelligent and conversational Christians.
I even provided, in excruciating details, some of the specific research results from my own work as a geological research on "varves" (sedimentary layers which prove, absolutely, that the earth has been around for millions of years). I did not undertake this work as a means of debunking old religious dogma, but rather as a means of keeping mine owrkers aafe, In other words, it was not bunk, rubbish research or done with any intent to prove or disprove anything. It simply "was", and it showed a dimension of very old sediments (and we only drilled down a few hundred feet, with lots more layers available!), extending down several hundred-thousand years(those were easily identifiable as annual layers, not some silly Noah's Ark instantaneous one-time deposits.
How would you otherwise rationally explain annual layers of leaves, extinct and fossilized fish, spores of now-extinct plants, etc? How indeed?), enough in and of itself to throughly debunk the idea of a singular global flood.
Why had people intelligent enough to come to a forum discussion site such as this one, chosen to be or remain devout Christians? Were they truly blind to the obvious facts and logic I wondered? This was also in light of what my own lengthy career, research experiences in the various pure and applied sciences and years of thought and discussion with others, face to face, had taught me. Over and over again.
The Internet allows us the option of remaining unknown, so that we can (and so we do!) say exactly what’s on our minds. No holds barred, so to speak. In many cases, both my posts of and those of others have thus become quite combative and even hostile, to the point of name-calling and insults.
So… what have I learned? I’m afraid to say, in my humble but demonstrably correct opinion, the following easily demonstrated positions that Christians routinely and reliably take:
1) They are very much afraid to answer simple questions that would obviously prove out the scientific logical and honestly concludable position. Such responsiveness to simple questions is a normal part of an intellectually honest debate, one in which, let’s say, we were adjudicated by debate judges. A failure to answer a simple honest question means you forfeit the debate. A spurious or ad-hominem response instead of responding honesty? You forfeit the debate.
2) Christian re-definitions are always those of Selective Convenience, designed to fit their argument in the moment, and not usually (or never?) accepted definitions. Examples? Evolution. Abiogenesis. Theory. Hypothesis. Research Design. The Scientific Method. Standards for Debates. All are taken either out of context or are purposefully manipulated or modified.
3) When or if any of us correct those mis-informed bits of information, Christians will either ignore that information, or they will then re-state, over and over, their same ill-informed position a few posts later, as if there had never been an honest and informative exchange between you and them. To ignore correct definitions is to maintain a muddled state of ignorance which they do actively seem to prefer. I’d like to have them prove me wrong, but so far, in over 3 years, they have not. They can not. because, it's been so conclusively proven over and over, there is no God, and thus everything associated with that belief is automaticallyforfeit. On the basis of facts, truth and logic.
The links so often posted as some sort of “proof” of some fact that supposedly completely obliviates the entire theory of, well, anything they don’t like, are always provided by some pseudo-non-accredited wanna-be "professor" or "Doctor", people who acquire their degrees at non-existent universities., Kent Hovind, Dr. Luke, etc., or Dr. (!!) Carl Baugh, who when I looked him up recently, had gone to a “University” that he and his friend created online. All on their own! Quite creative, I will give them that! But in the spirit of the apologist's defense of Christianity, totally bogus and dishonest. As it always proves to be when the questions get into the gritty details. As in:
"The Pacific College of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and Poplar Bluff, Missouri, U.S.A."
Campuses in Melbourne and also Poplar Bluffs, Missouri? Wow, huh? (When inquiries are made, these campuses do not exist in those locations, btw…) Near to Carl’s home you understand! Sound credible to you? (PS: "Dr" Baugh's thesis abstract is on line, and is so full of dogma-based defensive hog-twaddle that it would not stand up in any accredited University's publications. They'd be far too embarrassed!)
Nope; didn't fly with me either! His friend, the only other graduate EVER from this ostentatious and premier-listed (<hee hee>)”Institute of Higher Learning”, was the “honorary’ president, and then once the newly-minted doctor had his “degree”, he got to play president of the University for a while (and of course note on that position on his hugely fake CV…)!
All totally bogus, and yet, provided by devout Christians here as some sort of inarguable proof by some so-called accredited individual who we all know is a total felony faker. Sure doesn't add to the devoutly-held positions of Christian apologists, does it?
But then, when they are presented with credible educational backgrounds, plus links to tenured, established accredited professors by the score, their credentials, or your's (in my own case, with four degrees in engineering, biology and geology..) we are somehow not to be listened to or trusted.
Why? Exactly why? Because we're not to be trusted? Why is that? Because we're on City-Data? Do please answer that one, Christians. Why?
6) Thus, they refuse to acknowledge any actual, proper and demonstrable education and academically peer-reviewed and journal-documented study results, instead haplessly clinging to utter nonsense and academic rubbish.
They happily claim all of biological, geological or astronomical information and findings are unreliable, purposefully fancified, or based on assumptions and hunches, all while protecting and forwarding the most unreliable utterly faked stuff. Which of course conveniently and always support their essentially insupportable and untenable positions.
Heck, if those positions are supportable, why not provide us with inarguable published research documentation instead of just yelling, at the tops of their philosophical lungs, that all of science is just do much rubbish? How credible is that childish response? You tell me.
__________________________________________________ _____
Thus, I have indeed come to see the full and true [B]bright light[/b] here. It’s pointless, truly, to “argue” or “debate” with such a pre-determined mindset. All new technical information, which we also know is inbound at an ever-increasing rate, and is supported by always-improving or newly discovered scientifically valid techniques, are all available for their spirited review and critiques, in keeping with one of the basic requirements of The SM, that each project is documented to be reproducible by anyone. A complete list of methods and materials in order that the experiment can be reliably and carefully replicated.
But predictably, they will NEVER take any such research on as a project in order to debunk our research. Does anyone honestly wonder why?
I know why.
Therefore, as an inarguable conclusion based on my time here on City-Data, with well over 7500 posts and threads, I have come to know Christianity for what it truly is. Despite my best efforts to engage it’s supporters, they have categorically refused to engage in any honest debate and discussion, chosing rather to hold tight to their unsupportable ancient fairy-tale beliefs. They truly are intransigent and scientifically illiterate, and they continue to prove this point again and again. In fact ,they sem to revel in those identifiers! They prefer to deny all it, as we will no doubt witness right here.
QED, as we scientists always say. It means, in essence, “Thus it has been shown!”
So… what have I learned? I’m afraid to say, in my humble but demonstrably correct opinion, the following easily demonstrated positions that Christians routinely and reliably take:
1) They are very much afraid to answer simple questions that would obviously prove out the scientific logical and honestly concludable position. Such responsiveness to simple questions is a normal part of an intellectually honest debate, one in which, let’s say, we were adjudicated by debate judges. A failure to answer a simple honest question means you forfeit the debate. A spurious or ad-hominem response instead of responding honesty? You forfeit the debate.
2) Christian re-definitions are always those of Selective Convenience, designed to fit their argument in the moment, and not usually (or never?) accepted definitions. Examples? Evolution. Abiogenesis. Theory. Hypothesis. Research Design. The Scientific Method. Standards for Debates. All are taken either out of context or are purposefully manipulated or modified.
3) When or if any of us correct those mis-informed bits of information, Christians will either ignore that information, or they will then re-state, over and over, their same ill-informed position a few posts later, as if there had never been an honest and informative exchange between you and them. To ignore correct definitions is to maintain a muddled state of ignorance which they do actively seem to prefer. I’d like to have them prove me wrong, but so far, in over 3 years, they have not. They can not. because, it's been so conclusively proven over and over, there is no God, and thus everything associated with that belief is automaticallyforfeit. On the basis of facts, truth and logic.
I've been hoping for some time that more "moderate" Christians will show up on this forum and discuss how their religious beliefs and views are reconcilable with known scientific evidence. But it seems that this forum unfortunately attracts a lot of religious fundamentalists who either distort scientific evidence to fit with their preconceived religious beliefs or they deny any scientific evidence altogether that opposes their religious beliefs.
I will continue to hope for a more constructive discussion though. Maybe there is some middle ground between science and religion that is still out there.
I’d like to have them prove me wrong, but so far, in over 3 years, they have not. They can not. because, it's been so conclusively proven over and over, there is no God, and thus everything associated with that belief is automaticallyforfeit. On the basis of facts, truth and logic.
QED, as we scientists always say. It means, in essence, “Thus it has been shown!â€
I hope your rant achieved some catharsis from your continued frustration with the IDT'ers, rifle. Of course you realize that I cannot allow your over-stating of your position revealed in the above absurd declaration against the existence of God (as opposed to the beliefs about God). There has not been and there cannot be any such "conclusive proof that there is no God" and you know it, rifle. Such a ridiculous claim takes hyperbole off the charts. Try to control yourself a little better when you are venting against the IDT'ers, will you, old friend?
Let me re-post something I wrote in another thread, to see if rifleman is up to a challenge:
"Science might make a better case for a "gods" existence than religion does.
A "god" might be the inevitable end-point of biological, technological, and scientific evolution.
Think of all the progress we've made in the past 50 years, then think of how much we will make in the next 1000... then think of how much we will make in the next million years.
Bear in mind this: 50 years ago we barely knew what DNA was. Now we've decoded a genome. in 50 years we will likely be able to program DNA. In a 500 years we will could have synthetic DNA, and cracked most of the riddles of the multiverse. In 5000 years we could be beings composed of energy, with networked and hive minded brains.
If a being on another planet (or another universe) were just 140 million years more advanced then us, they would probably be god-like by most religions standards. Yet that would only require a 1% head start in a 14 billion year old universe.
Given the number of "evolution-capable" planets in the universe, it wouldn't be surprising if at least a few of them were 1% ahead of us in evolution. If so, they would probably have all the powers we ascribe to a god."
What say you rifleman?
In 140 Million years, would we deserve to call ourselves gods, or do you think there is an immutable law of nature that will necessarily stop evolution? It seems to me that evolution does not discredit a god theory, but instead it almost guarantees it.
So an argument for god does not need to be based on religion, but can instead be based on the implications of a 14 billion year old universe filled with evolution-capable planets.
Let me re-post something I wrote in another thread, to see if rifleman is up to a challenge:
"Science might make a better case for a "gods" existence than religion does.
A "god" might be the inevitable end-point of biological, technological, and scientific evolution.
Think of all the progress we've made in the past 50 years, then think of how much we will make in the next 1000... then think of how much we will make in the next million years.
If a being on another planet (or another universe) were just 140 million years more advanced then us, they would probably be god-like by most religions standards. Yet that would only require a 1% head start in a 14 billion year old universe.
Given the number of "evolution-capable" planets in the universe, it wouldn't be surprising if at least a few of them were 1% ahead of us in evolution. If so, they would probably have all the powers we ascribe to a god."
What say you rifleman?
Bear in mind this: 50 years ago we barely knew what DNA was. Now we've decoded a genome. in 50 years we will likely be able to program DNA. In a 500 years we will could have synthetic DNA, and cracked most of the riddles of the multiverse. In 5000 years we could be beings composed of energy, with networked and hive minded brains.
In 140 Million years, would we deserve to call ourselves gods, or do you think there is an immutable law of nature that will necessarily stop evolution? It seems to me that evolution does not discredit a god theory, but instead it almost guarantees it.
So an argument for god does not need to be based on religion, but can instead be based on the implications of a 14 billion year old universe filled with evolution-capable planets.
Interesting post, Box . . . good to see you posting again. Where ya been?
Great post as usual rifleman. I know that you know one can't prove a negative, i.e. there is no god. Unfortunately no matter how hard they try the religious dogmatic types cannot prove that god exists. You and I both know the reason for this; its made up by man in the far past to explain the unexplainable and as a means of control for those of that bent to hammer the rest into line. I applaud your efforts in trying to inform the uninformed. I for one have learned a lot from your posts and look forward to reading them. One of my goals in life is to try to learn something new everyday. Unfortunately until recently, historically speaking, this sort of thinking could get one hanged, burned, stoned, or otherwise erased from existence by the religious fundies who controlled power in government. Progress has been made my friend and continues to be made even though not at the pace many of us would wish. Fear is a beeeatch to overcome and religion thrives on fear. All I can say is keep up the good work. Your efforts are always appreciated. Even if by no more than myself, although I suspect I'm not alone in my thinking.
I think I ran out of things to say... until I came upon this thought the other day and decided I would run it by you guys to see if it has any merit.
It has considerable merit as an alternative to a more expansive view that God is everything that exists. In truth it would be impossible to tell really . . . given the potentially enormous difference in capability and form possible even in just 140 million years of evolutionary advantage.
Great post as usual rifleman. I know that you know one can't prove a negative, i.e. there is no god. Unfortunately no matter how hard they try the religious dogmatic types cannot prove that god exists. You and I both know the reason for this; its made up by man in the far past to explain the unexplainable and as a means of control for those of that bent to hammer the rest into line. I applaud your efforts in trying to inform the uninformed. I for one have learned a lot from your posts and look forward to reading them. One of my goals in life is to try to learn something new everyday. Unfortunately until recently, historically speaking, this sort of thinking could get one hanged, burned, stoned, or otherwise erased from existence by the religious fundies who controlled power in government. Progress has been made my friend and continues to be made even though not at the pace many of us would wish. Fear is a beeeatch to overcome and religion thrives on fear. All I can say is keep up the good work. Your efforts are always appreciated. Even if by no more than myself, although I suspect I'm not alone in my thinking.
Good sir, I have just posted an argument for the existence of gods based solely on known scientific evidence, without resorting to any religion, superstition or myth. I will restate, in a more simple format:
The Universe is 14 Billion years old.
The universe is known to be filled with evolution-capable planets.
It is likely that some of those planets will have be at least 1% ahead of us in biological, technological, and scientific evolution.
A being that is 140 million years ahead of us in evolution would likely be a god, in the common sense of the word.
The implication of evolution on time scales we can not comprehend most likely suggests that gods do exist.
It has considerable merit as an alternative to a more expansive view that God is everything that exists. In truth it would be impossible to tell really . . . given the potentially enormous difference in capability and form possible even in just 140 million years of evolutionary advantage.
And if one were to believe in the "multiverse" theories, then a being that far ahead could have the power to create a universe - ours. Just as we would likely have the power to create a new universe in the multiverse 140 million years from now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
